imported_Cablerat

2 of my friends got caught on those red light cameras...

The first guy already got his pictures in the mail and went to his first hearing. He chose to fight the charge. In the first picture you clearly see the car right around the line. In the second picture his car is completely GONE. Basically he thinks he made a right hand turn without stopping. What can he do to get off it? Cuz the prosecutor said he can be charged for not stopping at the red when makin a right hand turn.

The second guy hasn't gotten it yet, but we know he got caught cuz you can see that damn flash at night(and I was in the car at the time). I'm assuming he's gonna be on both pictures..

I remember reading somewhere that they were discarding a lot of these tickets because they didn't have street names on them or some ****.. I was wondering if anyone else might some advice on how they should handle everything, or knows of loop holes, etc, etc..


Thanks!

imported_gatherer

with the pictures if the exact intersection name where the shot was taken is not superimposed on the picture. then he can look up the case where the Judge threw out the case stating that the name of the intersection needs to be superimposed on the picture not just a number.....

he then brings that precidence in front of the current judge and finds the law whereby that is required reads both into the records and ask the judge to dismiss the case and find him innocent on that basis. problem solved

imported_civic_fan

imported_Cablerat

yeah but can't the judge just be a ***** and say it doesn't matter to him if the names aren't on there? It's not a law thing more of a personal judgement by the jduge rite?

Konig

Well, If I were nailed I would attend the required court and speak with a JP. Tell the JP that you are a poor ***-bastard and your Mom was sick and you were en route to see her. I would then hope that the JP lowers the fine and gives you more time to pay.

There are no points attached to a red light camera ticket only cash value, however if you fight the ticket and loss the presiding JP can inpose a loss of points depending on what the prosecutor asks for in his submissions.

That's my para-legal advice for this morning.

PS- It's really hard to beat a photograph. A picture is worth a thousand words.

imported_gatherer

then you have the grounds to appel since the LAW is suppose to be blind and if one judge says "this is the way it's going to be" then without government changing the laws or an appel in that case the next judge will have to say "this is the way it's going to be" judges are suppose to check personalities at the door...

and that is what a precidence is.

Konig

The prosecutor can ask for an ammendment. If the prosecutor asks for this ammendment to be the address or intersection. The JP has the authority to grant that ammendment.

The JP cannot just say "ohh I am going to ammend everything to its correct form" The prosecutor has to ask. That is the proper procedure. Infact a JP will toss a ticket if it is not correct on its face with this said if the prosecutor requests an ammendment and the JP grants it. The ticket is considered correct on its face. The JP's don't always grant the ammendments.

Konig

Case law is very easy to set within minor traffic Court however it is also very easy to change case law within a Provincial Court.

Case law is generally only considered the gospil truth within the Criminal Court.

It is much harder to have case law changed within the Criminal Courts but it is fairly easy to set case law there.

imported_gatherer

you have a point ... however you have a flaw in that ammendment stuff...

the picture is evidence and cannot after it's created be ammended or changed....

thats like me killing you with an axe and them finding a bloodly butcher knife at the scene and thinking thats what caused the crime... then find out latter during the autopsy that in fact it was an axe that made the cuts and therefore they go out buy an axe and replace the knife in the evidence locker with axe making sure to put the blood and fingerprints from the knife on the axe.. somone else gets arrested and goes to jail ...just because they ammended the evidence ...

the picture is evidence and therefore after it comes out of the developer cannot be modified... the camera is what superimposes the time and place on the picture. if the prosecutor then askes that it be a ammended to show that the code on the picture is in fact that intersection according to record, you can then argue that that is inadmissable because that information (evidence) was not provided to the defense.

so now that both his hands have been tied you give your information and walk free...

Konig

The information attached to the photo Ie: location, time and date can all be changed through ammendment. What I am getting at here is if the tickets reads Yonge & Bloor at 3:00am on October 1st 2003 and the incident actually took place at Spadina & Bloor on September 1st 2003 at 3:00pm. This can be ammended. I am not saying that the JP will allow the ammendment but realistically it could happen especially if it is an ex-parte trial.

The only thing that cannot be ammended on a photo is the car and offence. They cannot say "yer worship even though the licence plate depicted here in exhibt 1 is "APPP 055" I would like to ammend it to read "APPL 055" this would never happen.

You best have asked for full disclosure in the matter because if you didn't the prosecutor can argue in the voir dire(a trial within a trial) that you never aksed for disclosure and therefore it doesn't matter what evidence is brought against you.

This is turning into a true

imported_Cablerat

So what would he need to take into court as reference to the street intersection not being on the picture??

You said find the case where the judge threw it out of court, how would he go about gettin court documents referencing that..

oh and you can prolly tell i'm a court noob..

Thanks for all your help!

Konig

If there is case law out there regarding these tickets then you'll need to find it.

You can attend the U of T law library and photo copy the case law regarding this issue if infact it does exsist.

You will need to look up POA and HTA case law. (POA= Provincial Offence Act, HTA =Highway Traffic Act). they are going to be huge bibles. Good luck its gonna take time and effort. I am not to sure if the POA case law books are on computer at U of T yet!!! check that first.

and yes even non-students can get in. I think there is a $5.00 entrance fee.

imported_gatherer

well I don't really agree with you for that ammendment stuff because the place and time is put on the picture at the time the picture is taken, therefore it is evidence also the name issue is with them using codes instead of say "young & bloor" and it's that name that is incorrect thats a flaw in the evidence that shouldn't (in the mids of the Justice of the peace) be ammended... it's been attempted to be ammended before and has been unsuccessful..

you'd have to find out what case number it was then request the court documents pertaining to that case...

lordm

there is really nothing u can do because they have a photo of you car with your plates going throught he red. plea guilty for a lesser fine and no points, and u might get lucky
good luck

imported_gatherer

they can't put points on it already because the camera's can't identify who is driving

???

FYI, there are no points attached to a red light camera offence under HTA s.144(18.1) ... it's only a fine ($155 set fine, $190 total payable). Regarding the location issue, there is pertinent case law in the prosecutions favour stating that the location codes are not necessary to convict in the sole case of red light camera offences (I've got a copy somewhere that I'll post as soon as I can dig it up). With respect to not stopping at a red light prior to commencing a right turn, the appropriate section of the HTA which deals with these conditions/exceptions is
144(19). BTW, the prosecution can technically request an amendment to any facts on the certificate of offence ... it is up to the defendant to oppose and whether or not the JP grants the amendment.